But she and other administration officials are getting heat from some of the most famous astronauts on the planet, not to mention members of Congress and aerospace industry executives. Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, and someone never known to be a rabble-rouser, recently co-wrote with fellow Apollo astronauts Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan an op-ed in USA Today declaring that the space policy of the Obama administration is in substantial disarray. The astronauts protested the decision to kill the Constellation program, the George W. Bush-era plan for a new lunar mission with new rockets and spacecraft.

Heres Bob Crippen, the pilot of the first shuttle mission, STS-1, back in 1981: Ive never seen NASA so screwed up as it is right now. . . . They dont know where theyre going.

Step 1: Kill mission to moon planned before 2020.
Step 2: Have no direct ability to send astronauts into space for 5 years.
Step 3: Tell head of NASA that part of his mission is Muslim outreach.

Lost in all of Obama's failures is this one, perhaps his biggest next to the economy. America has been dominant in space since the moon landing. Now, our astronauts will need to hitch rides on Russian craft for a few years (at least). We have few if any well-known public goals with our space program. NASA has fallen out of the public conscience. The President who says we need to make "investments" in green energy, social programs, failed stimulus and more...is unwilling to invest in the program which has probably provided more benefit to the American public in terms of technology than any other.

Frankly they ought to just shut NASA down then allow private space travel, exploration, etc.

I don't think I agree with that. Space Travel is worthy national endeavor that produces a lot of benefits. There are certain things I think taxpayers should fund: Defense, K-12 Education, Transportation/Infrastructure and yes, Space Exploration.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I don't think I agree with that. Space Travel is worthy national endeavor that produces a lot of benefits. There are certain things I think taxpayers should fund: Defense, K-12 Education, Transportation/Infrastructure and yes, Space Exploration.

Space is green, which the Japanese know, hence their massive plan and investment in solar in space, but they're not alone-

"But what will we do when we get there? Once again, British scientists have answers – such as Professor Stephen Sweeney of Surrey University's physics department, who is part of an international group that wants to exploit space – for its sunshine. "In space, you can collect almost five times more energy from a strip of photovoltaic cells that you can on the ground," he says. "All you have to do is get lots of them up there – and if launch costs drop by 10- or 100-fold that becomes feasible. Then you can build giant orbiting stations and beam down that energy to Earth using lasers. It is safe and non-polluting."

New ways of getting into orbit are now being urgently pursued by entrepreneurs, most of them in America, while space engineers are designing smaller and smaller spacecraft to fly on existing launchers. It raises interesting issues for Britain. As a nation we have given the world Dan Dare, Doctor Who and the stories of Arthur C Clarke but, in real life, we have had a woeful record for launching rockets or flying spacemen until recently. Now we have a second chance to become a space power, a point stressed by Professor Richard Brown, director of the Centre for Future Air-Space Transportation Technology, at Strathclyde University.

"Britain has innovative and original technologies that could revolutionise the way we get into space and exploit it when we are there," he says. "But we have to act, and soon. We can either sit on our hands and carry on as we are – underfunded with small companies – or we can decide for once that UK engineering has something to offer."

And this is a key point, for Britain's efforts still fall behind other nations such as France, German and Italy in terms of government support. Far more public cash is committed to supporting space there than in the UK. If Britain is to raise that £7.5bn annual input from space activities to £40bn by 2030, as ministers have urged, they must realise that major government investments will be needed. Emma Lord, director of policy for the UK Space Agency, remains hopeful, nevertheless. "There is a distance to go but the signs are very positive," she says.
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ce-race-skylon

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I don't really understand why it's important to go back to the moon, or on to Mars.
If there is a case to be made, I'm willing to hear it.

However, I see Hubble as having enormous value to mankind. More in that department, please.

I don't know about the moon. But I think we can learn a lot just through the process of getting to Mars. I also think there is an almost intangible "because it's there" in terms of reason to explore space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So we disagree again then.

Apparently, though I'm not sure if you disagree with all of those, or just some.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I don't know about the moon. But I think we can learn a lot just through the process of getting to Mars. I also think there is an almost intangible "because it's there" in terms of reason to explore space.

"Because it's there" isn't really a good enough reason to ask a crew to surrender their lives.
And as I understand it, that's what a trip to Mars entails with current technology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

"Allow"? Since when was private space exploration prohibited, and by whom?

The world has changed since the Wright Brothers decided they could fly, and there was no FAA to stop them. In a world where dogs and bicycles need government licences, it's obvious that private space missions will be outlawed the first time there's a serious incident.

And in space travel, there's always an opportunity for a serious incident.

"Allow"? Since when was private space exploration prohibited, and by whom?

Well... within the U.S., you have to have permission from the government to launch.
One could "develop" all they want, but to actually launch a vehicle/probe/satellite requires the permission of the United States government. (The same applies to most other soil on the planet as well.) ... It would be difficult to actually "explore" space without launching something up there. (We've pretty much reached the limits, barring some huge technological leap, of ground-based observation.)

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

Nope. Don't think the federal government needs to. Those things could absolutely be done privately or, worst case, at the state, county or city levels.

So...you don't approve of the Interstate Highway System, then? Of course, that's not all fed funded, I don't think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777

"Because it's there" isn't really a good enough reason to ask a crew to surrender their lives.
And as I understand it, that's what a trip to Mars entails with current technology.

The world has changed since the Wright Brothers decided they could fly, and there was no FAA to stop them. In a world where dogs and bicycles need government licences, it's obvious that private space missions will be outlawed the first time there's a serious incident.

And in space travel, there's always an opportunity for a serious incident.

"Because it's there" was the second, less important reason (which is why I listed it second, incidentally). You ignored the first reason, which was that such a trip would have untold benefits in tech development (and who knows what else), discovery, etc. We're not there yet, but by 2020 I think we could be.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

So...you don't approve of the Interstate Highway System, then? Of course, that's not all fed funded, I don't think.

Let's be very careful here. Whether intentionally or not, there's a rhetorical trick hiding in there. I'm not saying at all that I disapprove of the concept of an interstate transport system like the interstate highway system. What I am specifically opposed to is the government funding, managing and building of it. It could have been done privately and it could now potentially be privatized.

"Because it's there" isn't really a good enough reason to ask a crew to surrender their lives.

The crew members are not being asked to risk their lives.
People are ASKING to be ALLOWED to risk their own lives. Those people WANT to do it!... They do, in fact, fight for the few positions available.

There is risk in everything people do ... get over it and let people take risks that they feel are appropriate. There IS something to be learned by doing stuff... even if only "because it's there".

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

Step 1: Kill mission to moon planned before 2020.
Step 2: Have no direct ability to send astronauts into space for 5 years.
Step 3: Tell head of NASA that part of his mission is Muslim outreach.

Lost in all of Obama's failures is this one, perhaps his biggest next to the economy. America has been dominant in space since the moon landing. Now, our astronauts will need to hitch rides on Russian craft for a few years (at least). We have few if any well-known public goals with our space program. NASA has fallen out of the public conscience. The President who says we need to make "investments" in green energy, social programs, failed stimulus and more...is unwilling to invest in the program which has probably provided more benefit to the American public in terms of technology than any other.

"Because it's there" isn't really a good enough reason to ask a crew to surrender their lives.
And as I understand it, that's what a trip to Mars entails with current technology.

The world has changed since the Wright Brothers decided they could fly, and there was no FAA to stop them. In a world where dogs and bicycles need government licences, it's obvious that private space missions will be outlawed the first time there's a serious incident.

And in space travel, there's always an opportunity for a serious incident.

Honestly Frank people weren't asking those questions when air travel was in it's infancy and if you don't think it was dangerous back then you should do some reading. And someday there will be a serious incident. As there has been many times with air travel. That won't stop them.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

You don't think the federal government should maintain the national infrastructure, particularly roads/bridges, etc?

Nope. Don't think the federal government needs to. Those things could absolutely be done privately or, worst case, at the state, county or city levels.

That's going to happen whether we like it or not. Federal fuel tax revenue can no longer sustain the cost of maintaining the interstate highway system, and given high gas prices coupled with the atmosphere in D.C. there's no appetite for raising it. At a fixed 18.4¢ / gal, it was last raised in 1993 so it's lost 33% of its value since then, due to inflation (state taxes add a lot more to that (except in AK)).

It gets worse: only 60% goes to actual road and bridge construction, the rest gets "earmarked". Great system we got there.

The alternative will be privatization - "pay as you go" roads that extract money from you using a system of transponders like EZ-Pass. I surmise the creeps in Washington will mandate new cars contain electronics that will make it easy (if they haven't already).

Selling public roads to the highest bidder, who subsequently maintain them in accordance with Contract specifications by collecting whatever revenue they deem appropriate beats many other unpleasant alternatives. Probably the worst of them are these quasi-government agencies like the Port Authority of NY, so corrupt, inefficient, and unaccountable it makes the Mafia look like a sewing circle.

It's been done - 15 roads in 10 different states are already privately owned and operated. The companies that operate them often aren't even American

I don't like it but when there's no money, there's no money. It's just another ripple in the cesspool of economic collapse our government has orchestrated.

There's no reason you can't privatize space exploration and research either. Most satellites are already privately built, owned and operated, why must they rely upon a government agency to place them into orbit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

... Not what we have now which is a national war machine masquerading as defense.

My god... deteriorating roads and rising fuel costs... might actually encourage people to reside reasonably near their place of employment, take public transportation, and car pool. How terrible!!!!

As for NASA, I'm with Obama and Frank777 here, and to a certain extent, MJ. We can invest more in space travel when we can afford it, and going to Mars and the Moon is definitely not affordable at this point in our history.

The alternative will be privatization - "pay as you go" roads that extract money from you using a system of transponders like EZ-Pass. I surmise the creeps in Washington will mandate new cars contain electronics that will make it easy (if they haven't already).

Selling public roads to the highest bidder, who subsequently maintain them in accordance with Contract specifications by collecting whatever revenue they deem appropriate beats many other unpleasant alternatives. Probably the worst of them are these quasi-government agencies like the Port Authority of NY, so corrupt, inefficient, and unaccountable it makes the Mafia look like a sewing circle.

It's been done - 15 roads in 10 different states are already privately owned and operated. The companies that operate them often aren't even American

Let's be very careful here. Whether intentionally or not, there's a rhetorical trick hiding in there. I'm not saying at all that I disapprove of the concept of an interstate transport system like the interstate highway system. What I am specifically opposed to is the government funding, managing and building of it. It could have been done privately and it could now potentially be privatized.

There is no rhetorical trick whatsoever. And by definition it wouldn't be a "trick" if it wasn't intentional. For my part, I don't think the system would have ever been built without government funding.

I don't know what I think of privatization here. My inclination is that I don't like it. I think there are certain functions government should perform, and that branching out into other areas is what has caused governments to consider privatizing roads in the first place. In other words, it's not being done for reasons you and I might happen to agree with. It's being done because governments are involved in too many other things they have no business in, causing lack of resources for things they arguably should be involved with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by john galt

That's going to happen whether we like it or not. Federal fuel tax revenue can no longer sustain the cost of maintaining the interstate highway system, and given high gas prices coupled with the atmosphere in D.C. there's no appetite for raising it. At a fixed 18.4¢ / gal, it was last raised in 1993 so it's lost 33% of its value since then, due to inflation (state taxes add a lot more to that (except in AK)).

There's plenty of money. That is not the problem.

Quote:

It gets worse: only 60% goes to actual road and bridge construction, the rest gets "earmarked". Great system we got there.

THAT is the problem...or one of them.

Quote:

The alternative will be privatization - "pay as you go" roads that extract money from you using a system of transponders like EZ-Pass. I surmise the creeps in Washington will mandate new cars contain electronics that will make it easy (if they haven't already).

Awesome, so a boatload of my taxes go away then, too? If we're going to pay as we go, then we better damn well pay as we go without paying taxes that go to roads.

Quote:

Selling public roads to the highest bidder, who subsequently maintain them in accordance with Contract specifications by collecting whatever revenue they deem appropriate beats many other unpleasant alternatives. Probably the worst of them are these quasi-government agencies like the Port Authority of NY, so corrupt, inefficient, and unaccountable it makes the Mafia look like a sewing circle.

Agreed.

Quote:

It's been done - 15 roads in 10 different states are already privately owned and operated. The companies that operate them often aren't even American

You describe a serious problem with implementation here, problems. First, do we really want a bunch of privately owned companies owning our transportation system? Secondly, are we still going to have taxes that go to roads when they are privately owned? What about security concerns with non-domestic companies owning the roads (or hell...even domestic ones)?

In my own state (Commonwealth, technically) there has been talk about privatizing the PA Turnpike. I just don't like it. As I said, I think there are certain things government should be doing. Building and maintaining public infrastructure is one of them. When we can't do that anymore, it's a sign that government has gotten its tentacles into too many things, and is spending too much money on them. It's absurd to think that that CoPA can hand out cash assistance, but cannot fund and manage its roads. Of course, this might also be an argument that government can pretty much SUCK at doing anything...

Quote:

I don't like it but when there's no money, there's no money. It's just another ripple in the cesspool of economic collapse our government has orchestrated.

Agreed.

Quote:

There's no reason you can't privatize space exploration and research either. Most satellites are already privately built, owned and operated, why must they rely upon a government agency to place them into orbit?

I'm not arguing against private space travel and exploration. I just think it should be a national priority as well.

Quote:

That would be the Department of Peace

Indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

My god... deteriorating roads and rising fuel costs... might actually encourage people to reside reasonably near their place of employment, take public transportation, and car pool. How terrible!!!!

This statement really betrays a lot of your true thinking about not just transport, but politics, freedom and liberty as well. First, the implication is that it's inherently more moral and just to utilize public transport and live near one's place of employment. After all, it helps with the specter of global warming, suburban sprawl, etc--at least in your mind. From there, your affinity for central planning comes into play. This means that you applaud policies that encourage deteriorating roads and rising fuel costs to that people will be forced into the lifestyle of the planners' choosing. You want high fuel costs because it will force people to live near work and take public transit, not to mention alter their lifestyles. Our President obviously shares these goals to an extent.

Quote:

As for NASA, I'm with Obama and Frank777 here, and to a certain extent, MJ. We can invest more in space travel when we can afford it, and going to Mars and the Moon is definitely not affordable at this point in our history.

That's a decent argument on its own. My question is what is preventing us from affording it (U.S. in particular)?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

There is no rhetorical trick whatsoever. And by definition it wouldn't be a "trick" if it wasn't intentional. For my part, I don't think the system would have ever been built without government funding.

Well I think some kind of transport system would have been built. Would look just like what we have now? Probably not. I actually suspect that rail systems, water and air would have been the primary long haul transport systems. I also think you would have seen much less suburban sprawl. This was basically subsidized by government-built roads. There would also be fewer cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Awesome, so a boatload of my taxes go away then, too? If we're going to pay as we go, then we better damn well pay as we go without paying taxes that go to roads.

Well that would be the idea, yes. If the government is not doing that service (roads, education, etc.) the money collected for those things stops being collected by the government and people retain it to spend it how they wish. The market would then drive the relative amounts of those things that get provided.

Well I think some kind of transport system would have been built. Would look just like what we have now? Probably not. I actually suspect that rail systems, water and air would have been the primary long haul transport systems. I also think you would have seen much less suburban sprawl. This was basically subsidized by government-built roads. There would also be fewer cars.

Something would have been built, that is for sure. I don't think it would have been a better system, but there is no way to tell.

Quote:

Well that would be the idea, yes. If the government is not doing that service (roads, education, etc.) the money collected for those things stops being collected by the government and people retain it to spend it how they wish. The market would then drive the relative amounts of those things that get provided.

Good luck with that! The tolls on many bridges were supposed to be reduced or eliminated once they were paid for. Look how that worked out.

Quote:

Why not? Why is this such a batshit crazy idea? We have private companies that own large parts of our electrical systems...of our other energy supply (e.g., oil), of our telecommunications systems.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Yes, that's how it should go. Of course getting any politician to let go of a tax dollar is like trying to take a cub from her mama.

What "security concerns"?

You don't think having say, a Chinese company that is essentially owned by the government owning our interstate system could present a few problems?

Quote:

Yeah...well...

Yup.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Something would have been built, that is for sure. I don't think it would have been a better system, but there is no way to tell.

I totally disagree. I think it would have been much, much better and still improving. Look at the telecommunications systems of this country. Amazing and still improving and prices going down, quality going up, speeds going up, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Good luck with that! The tolls on many bridges were supposed to be reduced or eliminated once they were paid for. Look how that worked out.

All the more reason to keep and get government out of as many things as possible. They lie and once you give them something, getting it back is nearly impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You don't think having say, a Chinese company that is essentially owned by the government owning our interstate system could present a few problems?

Not necessarily. But why do you assume it would go that way? And why do you assume it would necessarily be bad.

My god... deteriorating roads and rising fuel costs... might actually encourage people to reside reasonably near their place of employment, take public transportation, and car pool. How terrible!!!!

As for NASA, I'm with Obama and Frank777 here, and to a certain extent, MJ. We can invest more in space travel when we can afford it, and going to Mars and the Moon is definitely not affordable at this point in our history.

tonton are you aware of the cost difference between what's spent in other areas instead of space exploration? The yearly budget of NASA sounds like a lot until you compare it with other things.

According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58% of this. Compare this to NASA’s allocation during the mid-1960s when, despite the pressures of the war effort in Vietnam and President Johnson’s Great Society programs, NASA spending made up more than five percent of the federal budget.

Not that I'm advocating this but it's an interesting comparison :

Quote:

How does NASA’s budget compare with the amount of money the federal government spends on social programs? In the 2007 budget, the funding for social programs (calculated here as the budgets for the Department of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Agriculture, and Labor) adds up to a whopping $1.581 trillion. For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very nearly double NASA’s budget.

This would be something I'd look at :

Quote:

The idea of NASA money being diverted away from social programs is the most common proposal by those who would divert NASA’s funding. But how does NASA compare to other big government expenditures? Compare, for example, the NASA budget with the United States defense budget.

When you look at the numbers, the notion that we should “solve our problems on Earth before we go into space” is revealed as a blatant non sequitur.
The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609 billion to defense, not including the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 38 times the amount of money spent on NASA. If you include funding for the Department of Homeland Security, defense spending adds up to $652.5 billion, which is more than 40 times NASA’s budget. While few question the need to maintain a strong military in an uncertain age, some might consider it excessive for the United States to spend more on its military than the next fifteen biggest defense spenders put together, especially as most of them are American allies. Furthermore, there certainly are a great number of military programs of questionable value, as well as many sound military programs whose price tags nevertheless raise eyebrows.

As one anecdotal example, consider that each B-2 stealth bomber cost the US taxpayer roughly $2.2 billion. Then consider that the New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto, which will answer fundamental questions about the solar system, was nearly canceled for lack of funds. The total cost of the New Horizons mission, including the launch vehicle, added up to $650 million. In other words, the New Horizons mission to Pluto cost less than a third the cost of a single B-2 bomber.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I totally disagree. I think it would have been much, much better and still improving. Look at the telecommunications systems of this country. Amazing and still improving and prices going down, quality going up, speeds going up, etc.

I don't think there would have been incentive to build such a system of roads. And the system is a pretty amazing achievement.

Quote:

All the more reason to keep and get government out of as many things as possible. They lie and once you give them something, getting it back is nearly impossible.

That much is true. I still think there some things they should be involved in...we just seem to disagree on what some of those are.

Quote:

Not necessarily. But why do you assume it would go that way? And why do you assume it would necessarily be bad.

I don't...I'm saying it's a big risk.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I don't think there would have been incentive to build such a system of roads.

Seriously?! Wow. Why? Because you don't think that people want to transport things (both people and goods)? And you don't think visionary entrepreneurs would have seen this need and moved to serve it?! There are actually examples of other (privately built) transport systems (canals, roads, rail roads, etc.) where exactly that happened.